Willson v. Foree

New York Supreme Court

Willson v. Foree

6 Johns. 110

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1810

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 6 Johns. 110 (Willson v. Foree) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willson v. Foree, 6 Johns. 110 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence offered ought to have been received. It went to prove fraud in the defendant, in the special contract which he set up as to the payment; and it is a well settled principle of law, that fraudulent representations will vitiate any contract. The basis of every contract is good faith. If the special contract be void, on the ground of fraud, the plaintiff may disregard it, and bring assumpsit for the goods sold. The taking of the note under a fraudulent misrepresentation, was no payment j and any term of credit which the taking of the note may have implied, became void. (1 Esp. Cases, 430. 2 Esp. Cases, 522, 1 Comyn on Contracts, 38.) The plaintiff was nonsuited below, but still, error will lie on a judgment of nonsuit, in cases where costs are awarded by the judgment. (2 Johns. Rep. 9.) The judgment below was erroneous, and must be reversed.

Judgment reversed-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The evidence offered ought to have been received. It went to prove fraud in the defendant, in the special contract which he set up as to the payment; and it is a well settled principle of law, that fraudulent representations will vitiate any contract. The basis of every contract is good faith. If the special contract be void, on the ground of fraud, the plaintiff may disregard it, and bring assumpsit for the goods sold. The taking of the note under a fraudulent misrepresentation, was no payment j and any term of credit which the taking of the note may have implied, became void. (1 Esp. Cases, 430. 2 Esp. Cases, 522, 1 Comyn on Contracts, 38.) The plaintiff was nonsuited below, but still, error will lie on a judgment of nonsuit, in cases where costs are awarded by the judgment. (2 Johns. Rep. 9.) The judgment below was erroneous, and must be reversed.

Judgment reversed-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Johns. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willson-v-foree-nysupct-1810.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack